NJ News & Views

[Editor's Note: At 11:59 a.m. on January 24 and at 10:05 a.m. on January 26, 2012, this post was edited for style, content and accuracy.]

We have never been formally introduced, but I, and by extension, my readers, are reaching out to you for your help.

As Editor/Reporter of NJ News & Views, an independent blog, I have identified problems and proposed solutions through investigative journalism and editorial commentary posted on my Web site since March 2006.

Journalists such as myself play a pivotal role in disseminating public information to a wider audience. That mission has not always been easy to accomplish, despite legislation such as the Open Public Meetings Act and the Open Public Records Act, which the state enacted to promote greater government transparency.

In recent years, informing the public has not only been difficult, but dangerous work.

Public policy is to blame.

On October 12, 2005, the state Supreme Court approved staff guidelines for compliance with the New Jersey Judiciary Open Records, which laid out policies and procedures for access to case-related court records. The state guidelines, referred to as Directive #15-05, were issued November 4, 2005 by Philip S. Carchman, J.A.D., Acting Administrative Director of the Courts.

In a memorandum released with the Directive, Judge Carchman outlined how court staff were expected to comply with Rule 1:38.

Since 2007, state Superior Court Civil Records staff in Toms River have not consistently followed that directive or Judge Carchman's memorandum.

In August 2009, Judiciary staff not only disregarded a state Supreme Court Directive, they also violated state law.

In a November 20, 2009 fax communication addressed to the attention of Terence Foley, General Equity Team Leader, Law Division, and copied to incumbent Governor Jon Corzine, Court Administrator Richard D. Prifold, the Honorable Vincent J. Grasso, Assignment Judge of the Superior Court, sitting in Toms River, and to you, as Governor-elect Chris Christie, I informed state officials of an incident that occurred on Judiciary property.

Over two years later, I am still unable to inspect court documents in Toms River because no state official has changed public policy since my last visit there.
 
As you know, Governor Christie, civil court records in Toms River are stored in a high security building with armed guards posted at every entrance to it.

On or about August 2009, I visited state Superior Court Civil Records in Toms River. As I entered the court building's door, a security guard asked me to place my handbag on a scanner conveyer belt. The guard observed that I was carrying a digital camera in the handbag. Although I informed the guard that I was a reporter, he told me I had to surrender the camera to his keeping during my visit to court record offices.

I did not see guards also confiscate cell phones that had built-in cameras.

My digital camera was the only means I had of electronically recording what happened to me after I climbed the stairs to the second floor offices of Superior Court Civil Records.

At the top of those stairs, I became the victim of crimes committed by court officials on Judiciary property. Those crimes included harassment, intimidation, making terroristic threats, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment - in addition to violations of a state Supreme Court Directive.

Although I received permission to review civil court records before my visit, I called several hours ahead of time to ensure that the requested files would be available for inspection once I arrived. The woman that answered my call confirmed that the files were available and ready for my review. Once I arrived there, however, a different woman challenged my right to review files since Mr. Foley was not present. The woman gave me permission to inspect the files only after other staff members confirmed I was expected.
 
As I informed Mr. Foley in a series of telephone voicemail messages we exchanged after my visit, during my review of one of the requested files, I asked a staff employee seated near me at the same table to identify any other case docket numbers filed by the same plaintiff, which she did as required under the state Supreme Court directive.
 
To both our surprise, a woman in the hall outside the office that was listening to our discussion summoned the staff member to leave the room. When the staff member returned, she expressed frustration.

Seconds later, the woman that summoned her to leave the room entered it. She strode over to where I was seated near the window, then stood over me and accused me of causing a commotion.

At that moment, another woman stood in the room's other doorway and blocked anyone else from leaving or entering it.
 
I denied the accusation.

The woman standing over me said I was not permitted to ask anyone for information other than Terence Foley, then she and the other woman blocking the doorway left the room.

One month after I informed government officials in writing of the incident, I received their written confirmation that they were aware of it.

In a December 18, 2009 letter sent on Administrative Office of the Courts letterhead and signed by a department secretary, court officials informed me that Governor Corzine had referred his copy of my faxed correspondence to Mr. Foley to their attention.

"I trust that the situation has been resolved to your satisfaction and that you will have no further difficulties in this area," the secretary wrote me. "Thank you for taking the time to bring this to our attention."

The letter was copied to Judge Grasso, Mr. Prifold, Mr. Foley and Jane F. Castner, Assistant Director, Civil Practice Division. Her name appeared on the letterhead with the names of Hon. Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, and Robert W. Smith, Director, Office of Trial Court Services.

Ms. Castner not only declined to sign the correspondence, one of her secretaries refused to transfer my telephone call to Ms. Castner either.

Judge Grasso did not meet with me after receiving a copy of my faxed correspondence to Mr. Foley. However, Mr. Prifold and his Ombudsman, Ann Marie Fleury, arranged to meet with me on January 13, 2010 in Toms River.

Mr. Prifold confirmed the meeting in a January 14, 2010 letter.

"I think our hour long discussion helped clear the air, and allowed you to voice your concerns," Mr. Prifold wrote me.

He told me he had spoken to Kenneth Kerwin, the Civil Division Manager, following the January 13, 2010 meeting.

"I can assure you that staff will do everything possible to make sure your future visits to the Courthouse are uneventful," Mr. Prifold wrote me.

He confirmed one of the issues discussed at our meeting: the recent reversal in previous Toms River Superior Court civil records policy, creating a protracted delay in making any copies I requested by as long as two weeks.

Mr. Prifold indicated in his letter that superior court civil records would work with me to provide any requested copies within a more reasonable time frame.

"Please remember, it does take time to make copies of files since we have frequent requests from litigants and the media, but we will do our best to accommodate you as our workload permits," Mr. Prifold wrote me.

Not according to Mr. Foley, who told me by telephone that he was not informed of such a change and would not make copies any sooner than two weeks, no matter how few the number of copies requested.

Following my conversation with Mr. Foley, I felt my personal safety was still at risk on civil court records property, despite the assurances of state officials.

"I am somewhat at a loss as to your frustration," Judge Grasso wrote me in an October 6, 2011 letter. "I am confident that members of the public who seek access to the court records are treated with the utmost courtesy."

In his correspondence, Judge Grasso did not identify me as a member of the media, even though I included my title of Editor/Reporter and the name and Internet site address of my online publication, NJ News & Views, in the copy he received of my faxed correspondence to Mr. Foley - which I also faxed to Judge Grasso.

The omission is not just a lapse of professional courtesy.

All New Jersey officials that take an oath of office, including Judge Grasso, swear or affirm to support the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey, which both include protection of freedom of the press.

When a New Jersey official fails to uphold his oath of office through omission, all Americans are victimized.

Information a reporter does not see is information the reporter's readers do not see - wherever they may live.
  
While the state Judiciary is exempt from compliance with the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), according to Directive #15-05, the policies and procedures outlined in it are modeled on OPRA. Both provide a legal blueprint for the dissemination of public information that is critical to an informed citizenry.

That is not possible if any member of the media is harassed, intimidated, threatened or menaced by any government official on any public property.

I applaud the state for releasing many court documents online in the years since my 2009 visit to court offices. Unfortunately, not all members of the media, let alone all members of the public, can afford the court fee to see them electronically.

As long as justice delayed remains justice denied, independent journalists such as myself must continue to weigh the risk to their personal safety and freedom against the greater danger that government business will continue to be conducted behind closed doors.

Please don't allow that to happen.

Sincerely,

Joyce Blay
Editor/Reporter
NJ News & Views
www.joyceblaynewsandviews.com

/jb
Cc: New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)